Blog 8

The focus of this study is the annotated spread: the selection of an image from Shaun Tan's Arrival, presenting that image to bilingual children, asking questions about that image to the children, and studying how the children create and impart meaning to the image.

The study divides the children's responses to the images within a "borrowed" aesthetic taxonomy(see below): experiental, compositional, interpersonal, and interprative.

I would redesign this study, taking the following propositions into account:

Are the proposed scribes actually articulating the child's genuine aesthetic experience with the image? Or as a function of their superior command of English, are they superimposing Anglo ideas that may not even have a quality of congruence with the child's original thought?

The group proposes to mitigate this "aesthetic imperialism" by tape recording the sessions. However, I would point out the curious paradox that exists within this study: the judging aesthetic in this study will be always be Anglo-centric; the stated purpose is to find out how children create meaning, but if that meaning has already been classified into genus and species before it comes out of the child's brain, then both researcher and child are conducting an exercise in futility. I cannot help but look at the studies' definitions of the kinds of "Annotated Responses"--experiental, compositional, interpersonal, and interprative-- and see them as a corollary of previous aesthetics, like the work of M. H. Abrams with his defintions of the mimetic, pragmatic, expressive and objective. As an undergraduate, I find it absolutely mind boggling how so many people can reinvent the same taxonomy, just with small tweaks and a different nomenclature. (This is not to say that Abrams came up with the "magic" 4-- I merely use him as example)

Just as this study involves a "relatively new" type of text (The Arrival), perhaps it is time for a "relatively new" aesthetic to go with it; one that compliments the bilingual nature of the people being studied, so that they can articulate and form an hierarchy of meaning within the context of their personal experience. If objectivity is our goal, then the child must be allowed to be the self, to obtain the whole of their identity--which is bilingual--and make a judgement upon the object being considered without interpreter. Let there be two rules to this study if you want a true and unbiased result: (1) just write, anything in any language, hell make one up if you want; if it is devoid of academic jargon so be it, give the linguists something to do. (2) once the child has made aesthetic judgements, he or she must classify them--if they feel the need for differentiation--within that state of affairs that created those judgements--their actual world, not the researchers. Once this is generated, if the researchers so wish to compare apples to oranges, then they will have their vector.

If this is not accomplished, then the aesthetic imposed will always be an external one. The "children are not capable of articulation" argument generates fallacious results if the true aim of this study is to indeed find how children create meaning from visual images. If the purpose of the study is instead to verify the researchers' metaphysical wizardry in children's' aesthetics and semiotics, then by all means, carry on because they are doing a marvellous job.

Michael John Callahan

Dr. Chandler

ENG-3029-01

27 March 2012

Becoming M: discourse analysis using adult learners transcript

            The transcript of M and Ch gives plenty to those who till its fields and the bounty I have reaped has caused me to separate my analysis into two parts. My first extrapolation from the dialogue between M and Ch gave soundings of alienation as M struggled to adapt to technology in the classroom, and thus for the remainder of the first excerpt I applied a Marxist approach. Later readings of this same dialogue would completely change both my mind and methodology. I would find the dialogue not to be the “struggle” of a dislocated adult learner, but rather, that it was part of the greater human epistemological debate. M seemed waging a war within her over how knowledge should be constructed: shouldn’t her experience rule her understanding? How could she effectively transition between the rules of the paradigm she knew to applying an understood concept from the paradigm to a foreign object? Upon my later readings, I found these two questions to be at the heart of M’s speech. I have no intention of invalidating my original reading because of these late readings—especially as by keeping the genesis of the idea, it is indirect proof of method contained within this short work—so I lay the burden of judgment upon my reader to decide the value of truth that may exist within these pages. Hopefully my arguments are concise and lucid enough to convince you of one.

I. A Marxist Approach

1 Ch: So in 2002, you were word processing, typing papers. But in that math class you didn't want to use that math program

2 M: No.

3  Ch: Do you remember why? What were your feelings about it, can you remember that?

4  M:  I guess thought that I couldn't do it, I didn't trust myself, I didn't trust the computer, I was afraid.

            We can identify M as an adult learner and Ch as an educator. When M is asked why she did not want to use a computer for mathematics, M immediately switches the direct tone of her previous response in line 2, and chooses an ambiguous one with the word “guess” in her response in line 4.  Even though M has been participating in the larger world—where the computer has been existing—the computer has never been a part of M's immediate, necessary reality. Marx's theory of alienation is quite applicable to M's technology crisis: the miracles of capitalism, science and technology have given us computers. To M, the idea of human needs and potential can be probably be satisfied by her own faculties; computers are for typing—as referenced in line 1. A direct social function that a computer and fulfill in and of itself: a computer has a keyboard, therefore it is for typing. Technology is supposed to be a tool and she is feeling estrangement by the introduction of mathematics: “...I didn't trust the computer...” (4); in referring to preforming a function that is redundant, “...you know analyze it, the way that I could have done it myself”(9).  In line 9 M chooses the conditional word “could”. It is important to recognize that M is possibly admitting that she may not have been able to do the computational processing at the same level of the computer, but also that she is confused by this application of technology.

            What solidifies the application of Marx's theory of alienation is when M establishes the computer as the object of her alienation. In line 12, M gives a direct answer to an abstract question from Ch regarding the object of M's “resistance”; her tone is somewhat confused and questioning, but she answers with the image of: “...the computer?”  I think it is incredibly important at this point in the dialogue to shift the analysis from M to Ch. M is unwilling by line 13 to view computers as an educational tool. This “human function” of a computer does not exist within her worldview because of alienation and must be related to her by an outside means (Marx).

            This clash of worldviews, is the conflict that exists between M and Ch—at line 13. Ch identifies the possibility for individuality to exist with object of a computer by using phrases like “learning the program” and at line 15 she precisely elucidates M's problem as not “relate the computer to education”. It is evident from this speech that Ch is at least cognizant of the idea of computers as educational tools, if not completely accepting of this idea.  When Ch relays this clear articulation of a “normal” function for computers in an educational setting, M becomes further alienated in line 14 by accepting the authority of Ch as the “right way”, but still refusing to see computers as “necessary” (14).

II. The epistemological debate

            The rules by which M is accustomed to living by are shaken in her math computer class. The proof of this statement is in M's use of word “trust” in line 4. She trusts herself but not computers when math is involved. Her reasoning for this untrust is “That I could do it,” (6) and that the use of a computer for mathematics is redundant—“I didn't think that I needed...” This conclusion is an error in reasoning, because they place experience only had over that of experience yet to have.

            M's most immediate and willing memory of interaction with a computer is tactile; they are a sensory experience: “I was willing to type” (8). Using a slightly modified Kantian theory of empirical knowledge—since I'm mixing the kool-aid—we can establish a linear model of M's two computer knowledge experiences: 

                      M           

                “willing”                                                                       “No”

“typing”(sensory-line 8)_________________”math”(analysis/representation-line 1/2)

                     1                                                                                   2

The basis for assigning analysis/representation a higher numerical value is Kant's order of empirical knowledge (Kant). M's contact with the keyboard affects her senses, giving an immediate stimulus and placing the experience at a lower order of magnitude than M's math task, which while also one of experience, is of a higher order because of progression. M defines the tasks she must accomplish to achieve this progression of experience in line 9: “putting my information in there” and “trusting the computer to, you know, analyze it”. However, unlike the representations of letters on the screen in word processing—which she knew an A to be equal to an A—she is apprehensive about the representations her numerical data is to have in a machine she does not understand. After all, M has probably been raised to follow, or know Peano's idea of a natural arithmetic where an idea can be called a number that follows the follow scheme: 0, number, successor; and that also conforms to five propositions, the most important of which being 0 is a number and not the successor of any number. Does M know if computers also follow the rules of this theory? She has no idea. So 4 might not be 4 on a computer screen to her. M already knows how to interpret 4's and 3's and 2's. This is why in line 14 she says, “I didn't think it was necessary” and in line 17, “it made it more difficult”.

            So how to solve this little quandary? What M needs is a why; she needs to be aware of the theory behind the task. If we look in Excerpt Two-line 25, we find M finally achieving this progression of empirical knowledge through the application of theory in her next computer class: “it was a fun experience because the teacher was very good” ; “once we would meet in the classroom, and the other time we would meet in the computer lab”; “it was the actual hands on, how we would use it”. Now, if we look at the list of programs M experienced in this class: Excel, Word, PowerPoint and Project; M truly has come quite a distance since only being able to type. M has gained understanding in finding the answer to the why. M is satisfied—“very good”. If we look back to our typology of experience, we can see what the blockade was for M’s progression: “No”.  To effectively use of all of the programs in the Office suite requires the complex organization of data sets, graphical representations of objects in space and time, aesthetic taste and more, I would say that M has surpassed a value of “2”. This movement was enabled with the application of a little theory from her professor, as she admits to be the reason. M understanding is now truly progressing, but in order for further progression, M must constantly redefine her rules to avoid negative responses that are antithetical to her understanding.

Works Cited

Chandler, Sally. Adult Learners Transcript. Dr. Chandler. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. <https://sites.google.com/site/eng3029writingreseach/home/course-documents/AdultLearnerandNewLiteracies.docx?attredirects=0&d=1>.

Kant, Immanuel, Paul Guyer, and Allen W. Wood. Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.

Marx, Karl, David Fernbach, and Ben Fowkes. Capital : A Critique of Political Economy. London [u.a.: Penguin in Association with New Left Review, 1990. Print.

-draft-
Rsearch Question: What alternative futures exist in the discourse of S and A?
Using a transformative methodology.
Methods to approach the text: Causal layered analysis (What are S and A's views of reality; What shapes them; who are the unseen agents that "exist" within the discourse?; how do the answers to all of these questions combine to form  alternatives to the metanarrative within the text?);  poststructualist theory (specifically examining the binary oppositions that exist within the discourse); and postcolonial theory (what culture dominates the discourse, and how does this shape possible outcomes of the narrative)
examination of an excerpt:
Excerpt 1
S so how do you think you felt about computers (when you were young- in grade school/middle school).
A I loved it - I loved it because, when I discovered what AOL was - that I could email my friends, put in little pictures, photoshop - all those things - and like chat with people my age - which can be dangerous.  We didn't have a computer, but we had web tv. 
Analysis:

Blog 5

 draft

A new approach: moving from the myth of American literacy to the reality of a sustainable literate America

Achieving “literacy” is often viewed as a threshold moment in our culture. It is a crossing over, which is recognized with both the award of degrees and entrance into greater spheres of economic, social and political influence for the person obtaining literacy. This prescription of literacy is problematic-- it is literacy as commodity-- instead of a literacy unto itself. The unfortunate truth is that what is masquerading as an American literacy, designed to carry both the cultural heritage of our nation and facilitate communication between its many disparate peoples, is a myth propagated by the capitalization of academia. Recently, due to the evolving demographic changes in the American population, numerous studies and researchers have undertaken the seemingly Herculean task of how to both properly educate and integrate non-native English speakers into the fold of the American educational system. The conclusion reached by the majority of these works of scholarship is that literacy itself--especially English literacy in America--serves only one function: for persons within a class to eventually place themselves on a market, obtain and maintain employment. This end does not only betray an ethnocentrism that is rampant within the academic community, but it is also evidence of the capitalistic nature of of modern scholarship. 

If a literacy is to exist without the market, it must be more than a complex, academic model supporting the larger economic paradigm of America. It must support both our country's people and their cultures, while still providing a means for their existence in a system of capitalism. If this is not accomplished, the transmission of both our collective identity as Americans and individual identities will be limited to the myopic myth of employment based literacy. Therefore, we must adopt a new model. I will expand on the problem and solution later, but a short outline on the tenets of this "Sustainable Literacy" is as follows:

1/ The idea of what is literacy must be fundamentally sound and true, viz. it must serve the totality of Americans.


2/ This new literacy must be both economically and pedagogically feasible for all educational systems in America to implement. If they cannot support the curriculum, then it is unsustainable.


3/ The new literacy must be socially responsible. The purpose of this literacy must be to facilitate communication, not stratification. By creating and maintaining a common base for a literacy that serves all Americans, this system will encourage opportunity without the need for external motivators.


-----draft-----

Blog 4: What is Stern's methodology? what skills does she use? How do the limitations of autobiography identified by Evans apply to Stern's essay?

A positivist methodology shapes Stern's work. My basis for this claim is her use of the condition of PTSD as a type of rule; in essence, Stern is applying her understanding of this external rule to explain the phenomena of both denial and violence. However, as we discussed in class, she also wields her conception of the condition of denial pragmatically as well--it serves her purposes, towards a conceptualized end that she has already foreseen. I was too myopic in my initial reading of Stern's work to see this approach.

Stern gathers "historic" police transcripts from the event of her rape. She retells the event through the voice of a narrative. The events and actions of external entities-- the town, the police, her parents-- are relayed to us. It is left up to the reader to decide a judgement upon these persons and places, or perhaps to decide that none is necessary.

The quandary of judgement results from a limitation outlined by Evans: it is impossible to establish the categorical imperative-- a logical absolute whereby an action is necessary -- when the impetus for that action is hearsay-- which, unfortunately is what an autobiography is.

Now the limitations of the Kantian basis of moral judgements I have outlined is purely logical, however one would be quick to note that it is the basis for our legal system, and the reason why hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court cases, except as a plea to pathos.

I think that is my issue with Stern's work: it is an emotional appeal masquerading as an academic, reasoned argument on violence and denial.

It is important to try and understand our own assumptions and biases, and perhaps I do not value emotional appeals; nevertheless, to discount them as somehow inferior would be rubbish as well.

I think then, perhaps, that I agree with my original hypothesis that I asserted in class: that this work was Stern exercising an asymmetrical form --the autobiographical method-- in order to increase her own understanding; that her academic background was a wall of sorts. I would even venture to say that Stern had to suspend her intuition in order to complete this piece.

Ideas for Research Project/ Week 2 & 3

*Combination of 2 and 3*
Idea

Have the systemic changes in traditional grammar instruction in New Jersey secondary schools affected student preparedness for their university writing?

Questions

How is traditional grammar currently being taught in New Jersey high schools?

How does this current method deviate from previous models/methods of instruction?

What was the impetus for this change? I.e what was the cause for the paradigm shift? 

Is there empirical evidence that can be offered as a proof of the validity of each new model of instruction-- what makes this model true, either objectively or subjectively?

What are the effects of a system that quantitatively tests students on a basis of both linguistic prescriptivism and Essentialist construction of language, but that teaches students the rules of grammar within a conceptual model married to linguistic descriptivism and post-modern methodologies?    

Can the tools currently used by the New Jersey Department of Education be used to accurately gauge high school students language and literacy proficiency if there is a schism that exists between these methodologies of instruction, examination and the understanding of language itself?

Test what entity the model of traditional grammar curriculum serves: if it is not adequately preparing the students for college prep, as that is the mission statement outlined on the Common Core Standards website, what or who are the parties winning and losing within the confines of the current paradigm?


Week 2- Playing with Ideas

I see this paper as part historical survey of traditional grammar instruction and part illustration of the paradigm shifts that grammar instruction has undergone in New Jersey high schools in the past thirty years. I will first outline the current standardized 9^th-12^th grammar curriculum, and then proceed to articulate where the current curriculum deviates from models of grammar instruction of the past thirty years. This will demonstrate not only what each individual curriculum is composed of but will also leave the reader with the question of why is it being instructed and why was it changed? Once I have accomplished this historical examination, I will then illuminate the epistemological differences in the various curricula for my reader to analyse. I will undertake my own analysis of who is actually benefiting from the changes in these curricula using a philosophical approach that borrows heavily from the ideas of Wittgenstein and Chomsky. I also plan on attacking the question from the avenue of an educator, by actually interviewing high school English teachers who have a particular fondness for a certain method of grammar instruction, and thus they form a certain cohort that can be quantitatively measured. Finally, I plan on interviewing freshman college composition professors to ask them—if they could design a high school grammar course, what would it include?

Write a definition of methods, methodologies + skills

Research skills consist of the tradecraft and other technical proficiencies that are necessary to both handle and gather material about a subject or idea. Examples include: Understanding Boolean search logic (library skills); foreign or archaic language proficiency (period-specific skills); organizing volumes of disparate information (bibliographic skills); understanding the complexities of DCMA and Fair Use (intellectual property knowledge and IT skills).

Research methods are the individual approaches a person takes towards research subject. Griffin points out that our choice of method is dependent on exactly how we wish to conduct our research: do I want to use textual analysis? am I going to use statistical models? will I be conducting interviews with people? At this point it would be important to mark the place where method and methodology deviate from one another: a method is a orderly arrangement of ideas; whereas a methodology is a body - a grouping - of previously established methods, used for a purpose (OED).

Once we have established our method(s) for collecting material, a person applies a methodology to group the data, or ideas for a purpose-- a focus; this focus is elucidating a truth, but not necessarily the truth about the researched sbuject. Examples of different methodologies and their impacts on a  researched subject can be seen in this example: A positivist would only value knowledge that could be verified through experience and empirical evidence; this philosophy of knowledge would be diametrically opposed to someone from the school of Critical Theory, which views knowledge as constructed and thus prone to both perspective and error. The truth the positivist arrives at and the methods he used concerning a subject would be challenged by the Critical Theorist. It is important to note though, that both constructions of what a subject is are valid-- I avoid Griffin's use of the word "good" because I think it adds a dimension of unnecessary morality to a possible truth. The plurality of truths within an idea, or at least its possibility to be subject-dependent and subject-independent within the same point of time seems to be one of the paradoxes of research.